Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead and Lecturer?

I want to recommend two changes to this page. First, the claim that "Feigl-Ding later deleted some of the inaccurate tweets and moderated his tone. He also actively cautioned against many conspiracy theories." which appear to both be sourced to a newspaper in India. I agree that he deleted some of the inaccurate tweets and moderated his tone, but that is not stated in the newspaper article. Another source is needed for that. I disagree that he "actively cautioned against many conspiracy theories". At best the newspaper article suggests that he mildly cautioned against one conspiracy theory (but he had previously highlighted that theory in some of his eventually deleted tweets). Second, the claim that he taught over a dozen courses at HSPH is dubious. The source is his scholar.harvard.edu webpage, which is a self-written page, where he says he "lectured in more than a dozen graduate and undergraduate courses". The wording on that point seems unusual. It gives the impression he taught the courses without quite saying so. Guest lecturers are common in courses at HSPH, and I've lectured in a graduate course at HSPH myself. But I did not teach it.Joelmiller (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I removed the poorly sourced claim re conspiracy theories. The wording re courses taught is recycled from his own website. At Microclinic International,[1] it currently says "At Harvard, he has taught more than a dozen graduate and undergraduate courses". If this means guest lecturing, it is highly misleading to call it "teaching a course". The Harvard wording that you cite above seems more likely. If it simply means guest lecturing, I agree that is too trivial to be worth mentioning at all. I will remove this as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note - Joelmiller is a former HSPH researcher. Per Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines, individuals from the same organization should not edit the pages of colleagues or affiliates from same institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.224.5 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI: "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content". CoI is not benine, and editing while COI will be especially monitored, but it is NOT forbidden. Joel Miller is fine as long as edits are reasonable and COI is disclosed. Yug (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit odd that 1) at a time when EFD still had a tenuous Harvard affiliation and presumably the use of a Harvard network, someone anonymously using a Harvard IP address suggested that I shouldn't comment on EFD because >5 years previously I had had an affiliation at Harvard even though to my knowledge we never saw each other and I definitely never heard of him. 2) That same IP address was used in 2018 to anonymously edit this page and add unsourced details about EFD's childhood. 3) The person using the IP address thinks he has nuanced understanding of Wikipedia policy, but previously edited this page in apparent violation of the policy cited, and for some reason is posting anonymously. 4) That it was done by someone who was paying such close attention to this Wikipedia page that it was almost immediately noticed that I had made a comment in the talk section, even though I hadn't made an edit. I have the strangest feeling that 128.103.224.5 has a conflict of interest. I haven't edited this page, but that's got nothing to do with the fact that I might have overlapped with him but didn't know him (because I was on the floor that had infectious disease modelers and he had nothing to do with us). The reason I haven't edited the page is because I think he's unqualified and routinely mis-states details of infectious disease spread in ways that are sometimes dangerous, and given that I have that opinion I don't think it's appropriate for me to directly edit his page (and I'm particularly concerned that his sensationalism seems to be self-interested: he had 2000 twitter followers before he started his sensationalism, and now that he has 500,000, he recently tweeted out a request for people to make donations to him, so he is clearly trying to monetize the large following he has gained through sensationalism).Joelmiller (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section

The inclusion of the third paragraph appears to be inconsistent with the Manual of Style which states "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with 'due weight'. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing at biographies of living persons. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." The subject's posts about the recent virus outbreak are already addressed in the body of the article, and including that topic in the lead is overwhelming. Responding to Bueller 007, the presence of multiple references is not indicative of the weight it deserves. From a historical perspective, this is far less notable than his work in public health and political campaign. If there continues to be coverage of this topic, this might change. But presently, including it in the lead section seems to be advocacy against the underlying conduct, and using recent events to disparage the subject. This does not reflect a neutral point of view, and is skewed heavily to recent events. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 09:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And by removing this claim, you have edited contrary to the MoS by suppress[ing] relevant material that was clinically written, thereby making it so that the lede no longer includes relevant material from multiple reliable sources. Just because something is controversial and recent doesn't mean it should be removed from the lede. Congrats on making the article worse. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Twitter disputes / Coronavirus section expansion

 Done-- Yug (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just reviewed a source and edited this article to remove some border-line statement which is not in line with the source's main points. I look at that general section and... it's all about a twitter dispute. Please folks don't tell me we wikipedians have to cover twitter disputes now... What we need to know right now is why is this man on TV shows. But can we avoid to document everytimes an expert engage in a twitter dispute ? Yug (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

So the twitter controversy is about the fact he used CAPITAL swearing to show surprise in face of R0=3.8, which then went viral and is an exanmple of what to NOT do when you are an expert because it's distorded, taken out of context, and unfairly viral. Today, Wikipedia states "The basic reproduction number (R₀) of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9". Yug (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Must be expanded. The guy has done a bunch of TV intervention if I believe my twitter feed. #bubble Yug (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. I found a source sustaining the idea that the twitter controversy is a circle in a cup of water, so I sprinted on it and there is a new section. I'am only partially convinced that the twitter controversy, which is still lightly visible, belongs here. But people love [imaginary] scandals so I wouldn't be surprised if it will comes back. But for now we have something a bit more consistent with the fact he was largely correct and is now a pandemic pundit.

The second part is more distantly related to Feigl-Ding, the author use this "expert warning/comunity push back/expert was actually correct" story to reflect on ongoing global warming. I'am not convince this part belong to this FD biography article, but for now it's here and sourced. See also 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic and climate change. Yug (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not completely reviewed but still as unleveraged content :

• https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/who-qualifies-real-expert-when-it-comes-coronavirus Yug (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Madrigal recanted

Hi all,

So citation 30 is a piece by Atlantic author Alexis Madrigal titled How to Misinform Yourself About the Coronavirus. However, in March 2020, another reporter recanted the article [2] and Madrigal posted on Twitter that he agreed with it [3]. Should this citation be removed, a note added etc.? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Name, birth date, spouse

This wiki article currently has no explanations or citations for his birth name, his birth date, his spouse, or his current name. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Long piece on his Twitter COVID-19 commentary

Hu, Jane C. (25 November 2020). "Covid's Cassandra: The Swift, Complicated Rise of Eric Feigl-Ding". Undark.. Fences&Windows 19:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

{{Cleanup-PR}}

Hello all, are there clear actionables for this template's claim ? We are here covering and activist and epidemiologists amidst a poorly manage pandemic. How would you fix this article ? Yug (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I will remove the template for now since it's really not clear why it's there. We need better argument and guidance to put it back. Yug (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If the critical sections below aren't re-added, I think this template should be added back. The article skews too close to uniformly positive coverage relative to the amount of critical material that is out there. The argument that this will hurt pandemic response isn't credible in my opinion - you could, in the reverse, argue that helping Feigl-Ding become the face of pandemic communications is a net negative. The article is uniformly positive about Feigl-Ding and that simply isn't reflective of broader opinion, either among his peers or among recipients of his messaging. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 02:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I really think this template needs to be added back in light of the comments below and the current state of the article, which is very skewed in a pro-Feigl-Ding direction.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 00:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism expansion to monitor

See also WP:BLP recommendations.

One single user has been doing a rapid expansion of the criticism section of a living person, been reverted, and pushing again. This article is known to have highly partisan edits and attacks (see above). This expansion first included highly inadequate twitter rants and the text below still does. The content below requires careful review and review of the sources to ensure these sources are fairly represented. I also recommend to

• gather the relevant rules about no social media gossip,
• clarify our stance on expertise : the guy does have a PhD in epidemiology AFAIK, was an early voice warning about Covid and while not the top nor ideal expert, has per the previous points created relevant profile for media interventions.
• refresh the inquiry above listing the IP pushing for hostile edits
• [optional] we may explore the social rants but I'am really not keen to spend much time on that.

To the author : please refrain from reinserting this content to the article while we are reviewing it. You may however continue to collaborate to the content below. Yug (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Sahiljain22:.

Biography of Living Person, relevant rules

• WP:BLP:Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.
• WP:BLP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.
• WP:NOTSCANDAL: Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
• WP:BLOGS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
• WP:TWEET: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves […] so long as: […] 2) it does not involve claims about third parties.
• WP:LIBEL

Expertise and relevance

Inquiry on sustained attacks

• Please continue the effort in the section above : Talk:Eric_Feigl-Ding#Edits_reviews_&_Hostile_IP_edits_?.

Social media rants overview

• At a glance, I can see that EFD's tweetline is largely citing COVID studies by relevant experts. I notice that Marc Lipsitch has removed most of its rant tweets, so the tweet used below is an implicit attack. Angela Rasmussen has not. But frankly these tweetlines and public brawls are low level and disappointing. It try to take out the name calling, then the point they make is : “EFD is not the best possible tv speakers on epidemiology, many are more qualified”, and it's true. But EFD has several other skills which makes him relevant to this public conversation : PhD in Epidemiology from best university, notorious early messenger on Covid, good oral skills, visibly a good network with media as of now. Overall it clearly doesn't worth the public character assassination I'am witnessing. Recommendations : no tweets, no rants citations. Use articles if necessary. Keep the terms cool : "It has been pointed out that EFD, who has a PhD in epidemiology but then moved to nutrition, is not the most relevant expert in term of pure epidemiology." The “charlatan” name-calling bits from twitter gossip rants has not its place on Wikipedia. Yug (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to be very clear that I have no affiliation with any previous editors or edits to this page, including the various edits highlighted in that section above. I hope you agree that my own contribution history does not show highly partisan behavior.

As someone who has followed Feigl-Ding's social media presence since early in the COVID-19 outbreak, it is my impression that a large number of prominent medical experts and commentators on the pandemic disapprove of his approach to disseminating COVID information and believe he is using his platform irresponsibly, as a consequence of his lack of formal training in ID epi. The multiple articles cited in the section below include extremely critical quotes from other academics and commentators for that reason. I believe this does not violate WP:BLPBALANCE, as this criticism is sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources and the articles evidence that critical views of Feigl-Ding's qualifications are held by more than "small minorities". Additionally, these criticisms are not being given disproportionate space, as profiles of Feigl-Ding (e.g. this Harvard Crimson article) will acknowledge his criticism from other scientists. WP:BLPGOSSIP is not relevant, as it applies to information from non-reliable sources; all of the information here is sourced directly from secondary sources (usually multiple), including the critical comments by Lipsitch, Rasmussen, Popescu, etc.

Please let me know your thoughts. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 02:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed some edits to your comments above. It seems fine to specifically focus on the issue of qualification due to his primary experience being in nutrition and chronic disease. I think though that due to the substantial criticism that has focused on this specific point, two things should happen: 1) the criticism should be specifically called out in the intro (either the first 2 or all 3 sentences of Section 1 below) and 2) the specific criticism from Lipsitch, who has credibility in the field, should be paraphrased if not quoted outright somewhere in the article body. Let me know if that sounds fine to you. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GlobeGores, I will calmly documents the Wikipedia rules we should refer to. Personal attacks and easy rant accusations on personal, non-peer-reviewed micro-blogs do not meet Wikipedia standards. We can argue for original research as well since citing tweets equals direct interview and inclusion into Wikipedia without ever any fact-checking or peer review. While the author is identified, micro-blogging gather quick opinions and are not reliable sources. The content being personal attacks on a living person, we Wikipedia surely won't go there, won't mirror that. Academia and universities have known processes to address quackery and medical frauds. Did Ramusen, Lipsitch or others put some professional skin in the game, filed a formal complain, and did that complain lead to condemnation by a concensus of medical peers ? "Charlatanism" is medical term in French which characterizes medical fraud, and if confirmed by an review of medical peers leads to definitive professional license removal. Nothing of that seems in motion.

On BLPBALANCE, the article is currently 38-lines long (section titles not counted), your proposal is to add 10 lines on this specific feud to the article (+25%), and add 3 lines to the 7-lines lead (+40%) ? Given a 20-years careers in sciences (Harvard & co), politic, entrepreneurship, this feud's length breaches the WP:BLPBALANCE close. While we have to cite the skepticism of peers and the verifiable (=factual, not opinions) that EFD is not a top expert in diseases epidemiology, we cannot do it in a way which displays within Wikipedia some violent personal attacks and character assassinations. More so from personal micro-blogging.

While I had to argue these previous points I agree with your paraphrasing proposal. In my opinion, we should end up with a hint in the intro (about half a line), then about 4 lines in a criticism section, with strongly summarized-merged points and no adventurous personal attack. Yug (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

After taking a brief wikibreak, I've attempted to execute on the suggestions above. I've added two sentences to the intro, of which one is neutral (describing that Feigl-Ding's professional experience is in nutritional and chronic disease epidemiology) and one is critical (broadly referencing criticism from other scientists). I've added three sentences to the body in a new section called "criticism", describing Feigl-Ding's lack of publications in ID epi, another broad sentence about criticism from scientists, and the specific (paraphrased) criticism of Lipsitch's, including a quote of the single word "charlatan" (which I believe is a strong enough word that it deserves to be quoted and attributed to Lipsitch). Please take a look - if you want to make some tweaks, please do so and I'll follow up here if I disagree with your decisions. However, I'd like to request that neither you nor @Sahiljain22: attempt to wholesale revert or delete the edits if you still have major issues - please follow up here instead so we can have a discussion. Thanks for the help here.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 02:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GlobeGores, thanks for doing so. While the former content was excessive, reverting it all (which i did) was not acceptable as a long term solution. I reviewed your edits as follow:

• your edits are suitable on due weight (ratio of the article), both in the intro and criticism section. (WP:BLP, WP:BALANCE)
• the charlatan accusation based on a Tweet is not adequate within an encyclopedia, due to WP:BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, Wikipedia:Libel and it doesn't meet the solidity level for relevant encyclopedic source. I removed it.

I then lightly played down the « angry controversy » to take the shape of reasonable criticisms, better suited to our Encyclopedic project.

Overall, I recommend to document "sudden raise in media + not best curriculum + sensationalistic claims = rightful peers' criticisms". The nasty Twitter fights, even from or between professional, has not its place on Wikipedia. Yug (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Section 1: added to intro section

Feigl-Ding has been criticized for misrepresenting his credentials and expertise while coming to prominence as a COVID-19 commentator. In particular, though he holds doctorates in both epidemiology and nutrition, his professional experience is in nutritional epidemiology and epidemiology of chronic disease. As of March 2020, Feigl-Ding had not published any academic papers in infectious disease epidemiology, the epidemiological subfield relevant to COVID-19.

Criticism by infectious disease epidemiologists and other commentators

Feigl-Ding is described as having "precisely zero experience" in infectious disease epidemiology, the epidemiological subfield most pertinent to COVID-19, and as of March 2020 had not published any academic papers in the subfield. He has thus been critized by infectious disease epidemiologists and other medical commentators on COVID-19, who argue he makes sensationalistic claims and is unqualified to offer commentary on the disease due to his lack of relevant professional experience. Marc Lipsitch, an infectious disease epidemiologist and former colleague of Feigl-Ding's at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has called him "a charlatan exploiting a tenuous connection for self-promotion". Angela Rasmussen has also described Feigl-Ding as a "charlatan" who "has repeatedly claimed expertise he doesn't have in order to get attention" and "sensationalizes data and distributes outright misinformation", further stating "He's harmful to public health." Saskia Popescu has analogized following Feigl-Ding's advice to "[going] to a cardiologist to have brain surgery" and describes Feigl-Ding as a "constant source" of misinformation." Other medical or academic commentators on COVID-19, such as Natalie Dean, Eleanor Murray, and Vinay Prasad, have also criticized some of Feigl-Ding's social media commentary on the pandemic, even though some of these critics (such as Prasad) similarly lack formal training or professional experience in infectious disease epidemiology.

Balancing discussions

There is a need for some balance on the social commentary discussions. Somehow the May 2020 Daily Beast article was omitted from the discussion, which notes some colleagues deleted comments, and Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal expressed regret and recanted his piece after reading Wallace-Wells's piece.

Also, the 'zero experience' infectious disease claim seems to be wrong. The two Hack Reactor points out Feigl-Ding was involved in the development of a 2014 contact tracing app for outbreaks. Also his Google Scholar publication record includes many papers on global health and on infectious disease risk factors. We cannot just dismiss all those. Hence added citations to them for balance.

Also, what's still missing is that Feigl-Ding was praised by Maryland governor's office for raising the alarm too (mentioned in the Undark piece), but that wasn't added by anyone that yet.

Also, throughout the pandemic, there hav been lots of criticisms lobbed at many different scientists for many reasons, including those who criticized him, like Rasmussen and Popescu, who have been criticized themselves on social media (e.g. criticism of AR from Vinay Prasad--those such comments don't seem to be on their respective Wiki pages. Murray has been criticized as well). We should strive for some degree of balance, and not to overhype selective comments from social media. Sahiljain22 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Sahiljain22:. I've asked before, but I guess you didn't notice: Can you tell me where in the Daily Beast article it supports your statement "earlier criticisms from certain colleagues have been deleted"? It certainly mentions a bunch of things Ding deleted, but I don't see any support in the article for your statement. Joelmiller (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sahiljain, I haven't had time to review your edits.

Please note the section above about recurring IP accounts attacking this article. There is something smelly there to monitor. I also think there may be some anti-liberal and anti-Asian wind there. The intensive cherry picking and return of low level twitter brawl is weird.

Please note that GlobeGores have edited in good faith, collaboration with this user have been constructive. Yug (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The new state of the article is not balanced, in my view. Instead, all critical framings of the information discussed above have been removed by User:Sahiljain22, which frustrates me. Could we please add back in the two critical wordings agreed upon above while we discuss? I notice that you removed these wordings in your edit from 18 April before initiating any discussion here, despite my request above that you initiate discussion rather than wholesale revert my edits.

I agree that some of the public commentators (Popescu, Rasmussen, Murray) who are critical of Feigl-Ding are themselves embellishing their own credentials or sensationalizing, but this makes it all the more important that we point to the commentary of universally acknowledged experts like Lipsitch or Adam Kucharski who are critical of Feigl-Ding's credentials and approach. Working on a contact-tracing app for a hackathon that AFAIK did not get used for anything doesn't change this assessment, and his publication list (eg from a Google Scholar search) shows no evidence of publishing in that subfield. And is just an obvious fact that Feigl-Ding is not in the cohort of people who are recognized by the medical community for their COVID-19 expertise - he has not been invited to publish on the pandemic in any of the major medical journals, nor appeared on any of their interview programs. I trust that judgement more than that of the NJ or MD governors who thought Feigl-Ding was a renowned epidemiologist who should advise them on the pandemic.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 07:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello GlobeGores,

I keep the opinion that these experts should put more skin in the game than a Feb. 2020... tweet in order to be cited in Wikipedia. I require formal complain or process within their profession.

(Note: I also think by fishing such tweet and putting them all around wikipedia you are actively feeding the trolls).

Also, EFD is there an epidemiologies moving into the role of a "pundit", a tv & media speaker. Required skills and profiles are different. You can be a suitable pundit without being the top researcher in this field, there are hundreds such pundits on TV doing good pundit, public health communication, simplification, generalization, outreach job. EFD is not here competing with them on the academic field where the top expertise is required. The playing field is TV. So the "he is not the top expert", "he does simplification-errors", "he is sensationalism", while true are also misfit criticisms. I continue to be of the opinion that this researchers feud is an overall pointless, childish, my-lawn feud wasting our time. Yug (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@GlobeGores and Sahiljain22: I still only made a quick overview of Sahiljain22 edits which were done if 3 edits doing many content moves and are therefor tricky to review and reorganize calmly. In coming edits, please both avoid overly interconnected edits disturbing the wikipage's history diff feature. The criticism section GlobeGores and myself worked on have been softened and integrated to a larger section. It's not easy to fish it back. Please, Sahiljain22, GlobeGores, in order to save everyone times, lead your edits via isolated, local changes. Divide those into more edits, which are easier review so it doesn't dropt a mess-puzzle to the reviewers and we keep moving toward consensus. Yug (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, and Yug: - I made some comments above, but I see that this is being discussed here. So I'll remove it from there and discuss here. To @Sahiljain22:: can you point out where the Daily Beast article says that anyone deleted criticism? I read the article and could not find any such statement (there was a lot of discussion about threads Ding deleted, but that's different). Additionally, you have used original research and cited sources that are not independent. Regarding the app he played a role in: No-one used it during the Ebola epidemic (but the wording in the Wiki article implies it was), and although the press release you cited (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases) implied some people were thinking about using it to help develop COVID apps, you need an independent source to verify this. To my knowledge no-one used it in developing COVID apps. Finally, you have put both the app and the statement that his research "has included numerous studies on the global burden of disease trends and their risk factors, including HIV, hepatitis, sanitation, and overall infectious and non-infectious diseases" (citing his Google scholar page) immediately after the passing comment on criticism of his lack of infectious disease expertise. These are clearly intended to refute the brief criticism that comes earlier in that paragraph (and you even state above that is why you are including them). Neither the google scholar page nor the press release explicitly state that he has expertise directly in infectious disease. See this part of the OR Policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, specifically the example starting "This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:" Those sources you cite do not explicitly say that he has significant infectious disease research. In fact the experts in the field who said he didn't have prior expertise in studying infectious disease spread were basing that argument on the same Google Scholar page. If an expert can look at that page and make one conclusion then it's clearly OR if you use that page to try to argue the opposite. Additionally the sentence saying "he received early criticism as well as praise" should provide citations for the criticism and context about who was making that criticism to balance out the way you highlight the praise he received. You relegated the top experts in the world on infectious disease spread to anonymous random individuals (without reference) in comparison to the editor at large for New York Magazine. If the only reason you hint that there is criticism is so that you can refute it, the section should be removed altogether because it is unbalanced. Joelmiller (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) To @Yug:: if you are not happy with the criticisms being incorporated into this article without people putting "skin in the game" by making a formal complaint, I think you should revisit your standards of "skin in the game" as there is no disciplinary body that he is subject to, and he has no professional license to lose. Where should the formal complaint go? At the very least if the criticisms aren't allowed to be in the article, can we agree that the implication that there were criticisms from certain colleagues but they are now retracted is misleading (especially as the source give for the deletion of these criticisms doesn't say that as far as I can tell). I personally think that the fact that the top experts in infectious disease spread disagree with you about the significance of Ding's mis-statements does deserve a bit of attention. I think you're misunderstanding the concerns. Ding has actively promoted false or misleading information which has required significant efforts from infectious disease researchers to debunk. This is more than sensationalism - e.g., his thread on the supposed existence of scientific evidence that it could be a bioweapon fueled an explosion of conspiracy theories early in the pandemic and meant a lot of researcher time was spent on debunking that claim at a critical time in the pandemic. If the criticisms are not allowed to be included in a balanced way, then the sections that boil down to "people criticized him once but their criticisms were invalid" should be removed entirely.Joelmiller (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Finally I should note, I was one of the first infectious disease researchers Ding blocked on twitter (he eventually blocked a lot of them, including Marc Lipsitch) so it's safe to say there's no love lost between us. He is useful as an aggregator of information. But when he gives his personal interpretation, in my opinion it is often wrong, sometimes dangerously so. So I need to acknowledge that here, and that is why I don't feel comfortable directly editing his page.Joelmiller (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have no formal expertise but this tracks broadly with the feedback and criticism I have seen of EFD since the pandemic began. This fundamentally is why my initial draft of edits was very strongly critical - I believe it accurately reflects the mood of experts in the field.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed User:Sahiljain22's recent edits to the article. In my view the article is now clearly violating WP:BLPBALANCE by dedicating large amounts of space to minor activities by EFD that do not at all establish his credibility in infectious disease, and both minimizing and misleadingly describing every aspect of the criticism he has accrued. This is unacceptable and the comments by User:Joelmiller above reflect how seriously out of step this is with the opinion of professional epidemiologists working with infectious disease. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, and Yug: I just want to check if there is any argument that I am incorrect in stating that the source about people deleting criticisms of Ding doesn't say that? I'd also like to see if anyone disagrees with my judgement that the claims he has significant prior infectious disease experience constitutes original research. Finally is there any objection to my suggestion that the claims that his work on an app actually contributed to anything needs to be based on an independent source? My own professional opinion is that he did not have significant prior infectious disease experience (and I can back this up by pointing to errors he made that noone with experience studying infectious disease dynamics could make). I have never seen a third party source regarding his app being used anywhere, and he certainly never mentioned it until others were well on their way to implementing them. Anyways, getting back to the point: I believe the original research needs to be removed, as well as the inaccurately sourced material, and the material based on a press release. Is there any objection? (I forgot to sign this on 23 May --- Joelmiller)

@GlobeGores, Sahiljain22, and Yug: Since this doesn't seem to be stimulating much discussion from anyone who thinks the material I highlighted should stay, I'm just going to give a bit more detail about my objections specifically to the discussion of the app. Two claims are made about it. Both sourced from a press release trying to get positive public relations. From WP:IS "A press release is clearly not an independent source". Not only does the text currently in the article use a dubious source, it actually goes beyond what the source claims. Nothing in the press release states that the app was ignored because of "lack of interest in pandemic prepardness technology" as opposed to things like lack of functionality. There is also no source that documents that it "lived on to inform the later designs of contact tracing apps". The press release only states that they were talking to "potential collaborators". Surely if there were evidence that it had informed later designs, by now the same organization would have put out a press release about it. Again, I prefer not to directly edit this page, but if no-one will offer any explanation of why the material should stay, then I may do minimal edits to correct it.Joelmiller (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I can make this edit. I haven't heard from either @Sahiljain22 and Yug: recently although I notice that Sahiljain22 has been actively editing the page reverting occasional vandalism. Based on this, I'm going to make the changes discussed here and see what occurs. If we continue to dispute the appropriate critical material to add to the article, it may be time to take this to WP:RFC.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 04:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made 4 edits to the article. I have deleted the Ebola app paragraph as suggested by User:Joelmiller. In addition, I have re-added the two-sentence paragraph mentioning criticism of Feigl-Ding to the article lead, as agreed with User:Yug. I have created a level-4 "Criticism" heading with the two watered-down critical paragraphs created by User:Sahiljain22, though I believe this section needs to be reworked. Finally, I have re-added the {{Cleanup-PR}} template to the top of the page based on the overly positive tone of the article that requires more work.

@Sahiljain22: I sincerely request to engage with you here on this talk page if you have any concerns about these edits. I saw last time you reverted both some bad-faith criticism of EFD (related to his living in Austria) but in the process also reverted all the edits I had made and agreed on with User:Yug. I hope some of the discussion in this thread is persuasive as to why it is important to more strongly describe the criticism other scientists have regarding EFD.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I just made a superficial review.

Agree with user:GlobeGores: please folks discuss here before major edits.

On my side, I previously cited WP rules against including raw Twitter disputes and tweets as sources and will monitor this article according to these rules. Recent criticism section by GlobeGores seems relevant, by statement and tone, to report EFD's sourced criticisms in our wished Encyclopedic tone. This seems a good & better concensus to me. Yug (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally I'm happier with the current version. There's still one reference to the Ebola App that survived. Still missing from the criticism is the fact that he has promoted (obviously) false and inaccurate information. That's fundamentally what frustrates the scientists. If he were getting the facts right we wouldn't really care that he doesn't have an infectious disease background. I'll need to hunt to find a more authoritative source, but don't have time now.Joelmiller (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to User:Joelmiller's note that EFD's promotion of inaccurate information (esp. later in the pandemic) is important to note. The only specific criticism I recall offhand is his inaccuracy / incorrect framing of the estimated R0 (he said it was higher than it actually was and gave inaccurate contextual framing), though that might not be a great example as I think the consensus R0 estimate has been revised a few times in light of our understanding of asymptomatic spread.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 20:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Saw some changes. First, the continued propaganda that EFD is not a trusted source is very much one sided. He's been cited by many expert groups, such as ISAG and COVID Action Group. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC) https://www.isagcovid19.org/press-archive https://covidactiongroup.net/team

Also, Hack Reactor is not some mere 'hackathon' someone claimed. Hack Reactor is a bonafide computer programming academy. And the product was later described as relevant to COVID. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC) https://www.hackreactor.com/blog/pandemic-fighting-tool-developed-at-hack-reactor-gets-new-life

Also, what is considered 'false' and 'inaccurate' has been rapidly changing during the pandemic. Asymptomatic transmission was once considered false, but now definitely true. Airborne virus aerosols was once considered false, but now true. Re-infection was once false, but now clearly true. And even lab leak debate has shifted a lot in recent weeks to be more plausible than before. Some of the people who criticized EFD were frequently asymptomatic-deniers, airborne-deniers (including fecal aerosol deniers), reinfection-deniers, and even no-mask-needed... and they criticized EFD for advocating the precautionary principles based on emerging evidence (even when aerosol scientists were advocating airborne precautions in letters to WHO). Have references to all of these. Thus, the criticisms of communicating false / misleading info is highly subjective, and should be contextualized in time of when they were made, and a person not forever labeled as misleading, especially when he called as an expert by many expert groups. Let's be fair. Welcome Yug's balancd feedback too. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sahiljain22: TL/DR: I've made specific claims about violations of editing policies intended to ensure a neutral point of view, which you have not responded to. I'm going to ask that you join me in abstaining from editing the main page except to correct obvious vandalism - stick to the talk page, and if you can convince someone that your point is correct let them do the edits. You've violated WP:IS (citing a press release to imply he has expertise in infectious disease), WP:UNDUE (giving more weight to a magazine editor-at-large than a Harvard infectious disease expert about an infectious disease topic), and WP:OR (implying he has expertise in infectious disease by taking data from Google Scholar to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by Google Scholar -- see specifically WP:SYNTH). As a result, you've led to this turning into a page that violates WP:NPOV.

A press release is not an independent source WP:IS. Can you provide an independent source that backs up your claim "the product was later described as relevant to COVID"? Is there a source that says someone's phone somewhere has something installed on it that is in any way based on the app he produced? If so, that's the source you should use. Otherwise it needs to go. Can you provide a source that explicitly says that he had prior expertise publishing in infectious disease? If so, use that. The original research citing Google Scholar needs to go WP:OR (indeed as an infectious disease researcher, I think his Google Scholar page shows he does not have prior expertise in understanding infectious disease dynamics).

Referring to the statements of widely acknowledged world leading experts on infectious disease (e.g., but not limited to https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=eIqfmHYAAAAJ&hl=en, https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=cBEV4DcAAAAJ) as "one-sided propaganda" suggests you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. You counter these and other highly regarded scientists by referencing the "many expert groups" that cite Ding. But, the two you mention are actually groups that formed to advocate for a specific political policy on COVID and he is a member of both [edit: he is a member of one, and has spoken on behalf of the other at a press conference]. They do not constitute evidence of his expertise, but rather evidence that he agrees with their stated policy goals WP:IS. So I would be happy for the article to say that "many leading infectious disease researchers state that he is unqualified to interpret the scientific data on COVID", while at the same time, in a different part of the article it could say "he is a member of organizations advocating for elimination of COVID". However, as it stands now, it looks like anonymous no-name people claimed he lacked infectious disease expertise, while he got "praise from David Wallace-Wells, editor-at-large at New York Magazine". You've suppressed the prominence of the people who criticized him while referring to praise from someone who seems prominent (but has no relevant experience to evaluate Ding's infectious disease expertise). This is a violation of WP:UNDUE ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.").

Now, I'll grant that Ding has probably learned a lot about infectious diseases in the last year and I agree he can be a useful aggregator of information, but when he gives his personal interpretation of things, even now he's still often wrong. Regarding his expertise prior to 2020 on infectious disease, judge for yourself. Here are two sample claims he made in his first thread: 2003 SARS had an R0 less than 1, and he had never seen an R0 as large as 3.8 in his career. Anyone with actual infectious disease expertise would know that if the 2003 SARS epidemic had had an R0 below 1 it wouldn't have needed any interventions to control (surely even the non-infectious disease researchers editing this page are by now aware that if R0<1 outbreaks die out rather than grow). Anyone with actual expertise on infectious disease dynamics would know that many childhood diseases have a significantly higher R0 than 3.8 (Measles, polio, mumps, pertussis, ...). These aren't mistakes that someone who has taken and understood a one-semester class on infectious disease dynamics would make. (I have more examples of his mis-statements, but that's a good place to start).

I'd like to end by asking for a shift in some of the emphasis on the criticism as people edit this. He is not being criticized for offering commentary on social media (there are many people without previous expertise who are offering commentary that are not being criticized by infectious disease researchers). Rather he is being criticized for offering inaccurate commentary while implying that he has qualifications on infectious disease that he does not. I'd also ask that unless user:Sahiljain22 responds to the specific concerns about editing policy, then someone (not me) remove the references to the Ebola app and the reference to his Google scholar page in the criticism section. They've been put into the section on criticism, and specifically the paragraph that mentions people criticizing his infectious disease expertise. If they are being used to suggest Ding has expertise, then by WP:SYNTH a credible source is needed to say that these are evidence of his infectious disease expertise. If they are not being used to imply this, then they have no relevance to this paragraph. I'd also like to ask that this paragraph be modified to give due weight WP:DUE to the fact that the people who criticized him are world-renowned experts in infectious disease and were highly regarded experts even before 2020. Praise from a magazine editor without infectious disease expertise doesn't belong on an equal footing, much less on a higher footing in this paragraph. Hopefully this is the last I'm going to have to say on this. Joelmiller (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the above.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for this claim from User:Joelmiller "while implying that he has qualifications on infectious disease." Smojarad (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, first, if he acknowledges a lack of prior qualifications on infectious disease, then the text that has been put in there to imply he does have such qualifications should be removed, right? Second: This was in his first tweet on the topic "never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I'm not exaggerating(Source: https://threader.app/thread/1220919589623803905)". By that he meant that this was the highest R0 he had seen in his entire career. This suggests that his career at least involves looking at R0. Later in that thread (now deleted, and I can't find it saved anywhere), he said people were questioning his qualifications to comment on infectious diseases, but he has a PhD in Epidemiology from Harvard. Elsewhere he has talked about his "Harvard Colleagues" (most of whom he has since blocked on twitter). But if we agree that he acknowledges no prior expertise in infectious disease, can we then take out the text that is put there to suggest he does?Joelmiller (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey guys, first, I have no personal conflicts as I'm not someone connected with EFD in any collaboration or capacity. and trying to suggest I cannot edit the page in inherently against the spirit of Wikipedia. Second, Hack Reactor piece is not a press release. EFD doesn't seem to ever been part of Hack Reactor to public knowledge. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not say you couldn't edit it. You're really jumping to conclusions. I stated that you had violated about 4 distinct wikipedia policies while editing it and that perhaps you should have the self-awareness to recognize that you weren't maintaining a neutral point of view and that instead you should see if you could convince others of the need for a change rather than acting unilaterally. Whether the Hack Reactor piece is a press release or a blog post, is splitting hairs (and I think calling it a "press release" is more generous than calling it "a self-promoting blog post"). It is a publication produced by Hack Reactor on a topic that Hack Reactor has an interest in promoting. According to WP:IS "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." And even if it were from an independent source, the text is clearly put into that paragraph to say he has relevant infectious disease expertise, which would make it a violation of WP:SYNTH unless that independent source states that this is evidence of his infectious disease expertise. So this does not address my question to you about WP:IS, nor on WP:SYNTH. You again have not answered my questions about WP:UNDUE or WP:OR. Can you provide reliable sources or explain why my interpretation of these sources is inaccurate? Joelmiller (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

EFD doesn't seem to be part of ISAG - thus, Joel claiming he's a member of ISAG is likely incorrect. But hey, we can all make mistakes. Speaking of mistakes, he admitted he made a typo on the R comparison and deleted that soon after, but should he be held as an inaccurate personal forever, even though his main message was correct? Wallace-Wells makes a point about this over nitpicking issue. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/01/china-coronavirus-twitter/605644/
• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/why-was-it-so-hard-to-raise-the-alarm-on-coronavirus.html

"admitted he made a typo" No. Just No. That's not just a minor mistake. He admitted that he misread a source and believed what he wrote was true. The question is how could he have relevant infectious disease expertise and say: "it exceeds SARS’s modest 0.49 viral attack rate by 7.75x — almost 8 fold! A virus that spreads 8 faster than SARS (Source: https://threader.app/thread/1220919589623803905)". He clearly believed that SARS had an R0 of 0.49 when he wrote that. Sure, he misread something. But let's be clear - to anyone with infectious disease experience, the statement that a disease with R0 of 0.49 caused a multi-country epidemic is as absurd as you reading about an airplane flying 20,000 feet below sea level, or that an explorer traveled North until he finally reached the South Pole. If you read either of these, you would know immediately that either the person writing it made a mistake or you misread it. Ding did not recognize that there was anything wrong with saying SARS had an R0 of 0.49. That's my point. It's a mistake that reveals his ignorance on the topic - it's a mistake no-one who understood a one-semester infectious disease class could make. Me misinterpreting Eric Ding speaking at a press conference advertised by and on behalf of ISAG as evidence that Eric Ding is part of their advocacy group does not rise to the same level. If I were claiming to have expertise about ISAG's inner workings while claiming that someone speaking out against them were a member, then it would be comparable. Joelmiller (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

EFD's role is more of an epidemiology information aggregator, agreed, but that doesn't mean he cannot offer his opinion. Many other MD experts and PhD experts are not infectious disease trained per se, such as Scott Gottlieb or Ashish Jha or countless computer scientists and aerosol engineers, but they frequently offer their pandemic advice. And many virologists offer epidemiology and clinical advice enough though virology isn't equal to epidemiology. My point is infectious disease sub specialized training is not a requirement for commentary during the pandemic, and hence this over emphasize on ID 'subfield' expertise is somewhat overblown, especially for the intro paragraph -- especially how nuanced and pedantic it is. That said, I'm in favor of keep the debate in the section below though. Hope you guys see that as more fair. Sahiljain22 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said if he were stating accurate facts or just not claiming relevant infectious disease expertise, there would have been no major concern with his commentary. You do not see the same concerns about aerosol engineers (and you won't find me making statements with great certainty about aerosols even though my PhD was originally closely related to fluid dynamics). You certainly won't find an aerosol engineer who's gotten to 500,000 followers and then tweeted out asking them to donate money to him. The issue is his inaccurate statements that are attached to his claim to being an expert in the field.Joelmiller (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the criticisms have been largely unfair and inaccurate. Some have even suggested that the intense scrutiny is rooted in racism. I am currently working on the "criticisms" section so that it is more concise, accurate, and balanced. I suggest changing the title to "Academic debates on expertise" so that it is more pedantic. Smojarad (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The credentialism appears partisan and is repeatedly invoked by detractors. Interestingly, these are detractors that have been ideologically opposed to certain issues in the pandemic. Specialization in a specific field of Epidemiology does not exclude a Doctorate from performing analysis in another field, especially considering the tools of analysis are redundant. Using a criticism section to shoehorn comments from ideologically opposed detractors into a wikipedia page is petty. Zmlpqa01 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree the hack reactor point should be maintained. It's clear he was working on the development of the app pre-covid. Zmlpqa01 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide an independent source that suggests it was anything more than a class project that was never used by anyone? Joelmiller (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I try to find similar profile as EFD, scientists covering a topic with ocassional errors, and observe how we cover those biographies on Wikipedia. I noticed Peter Daszak on NYT : On Dec. 10, Peter Daszak, who organized The Lancet letter denouncing the questioning of Covid-19’s natural origins and was announced as a member of the W.H.O. origins investigation committee last fall, insisted it was a conspiracy theory to suggest that there were live bats in labs he had collaborated with for 15 years. “That’s not how this science works,” he wrote in a tweet he later deleted. “We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. We RELEASE bats where we catch them!” But evidence to the contrary has accumulated. [...] Just a few weeks ago, Dr. Daszak changed his claims. “I wouldn’t be surprised if,” he said, “like many other virology labs, they were trying to set up a bat colony.” Neil Ferguson could be an other controversial Covid19 figure. There is likely others. I wonder if our coverage of their "errors" is consistent. I suspect entities openly linked to political forces (CCP, Democrats, Republicans), minorities or foreigners may receive harsher social web and news coverage. I m puzzled on how we must to handle such phenomenon known to sociologists studying minorities and medias. Yug (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Current Violations of Wikipedia Policy in the Article

There are currently a number of violations of Wikipedia policy. Currently there is a section that purportedly discusses criticisms of EFD coming from world-recognized experts in the spread of infectious disease (e.g., Marc Lipsitch, Adam Kucharski, Bill Hanage, and many, many others). The criticisms are specifically that they are concerned about him giving out inaccurate information while claiming (or at least allowing others to make the claim on his behalf) expertise in infectious diseases. However this section does not discuss the criticisms in any substantive way, while misrepresenting the stature of the people making the criticisms, and explicitly discounts the criticisms. The people who have primarily written and edited this section explicitly refer to the criticisms as "propaganda", "unfair", "inaccurate". They have allowed this bias to lead them to write the section so that it explicitly counters the criticisms without even presenting the what the criticisms are or who made them. I am considering whether we should turn this over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

In the below, please focus on the specific claims of violation of policy, rather than whataboutism.

• This section violates WP:UNDUE ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.") because it fails to mention the infectious disease qualifications of the people who question the accuracy of his statements, but in the same sentence it highlights praise by someone who has no relevant infectious disease expertise: "He received early criticism for offering social media commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic as well as praise from David Wallace-Wells editor-at-large at New York Magazine." If the section is about criticisms of his infectious disease expertise, surely the infectious disease experts opinions are at least as relevant as the opinions of a magazine editor.

• The section violates WP:IS ("Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting.") because it sources a claim from a publication written by an organization to promote a product of that organization (Hack Reactor). An independent source is needed if there is any implication that the product was any good (indeed, I do not think it has been used ever by anyone, and I've never seen a source implying it). It also provides misleading information from that blog post/press release by seeming to imply that the product was used to help control the Ebola epidemic. It was not, and the source implicitly acknowledges this fact.

• In the same moment it violates WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") because it uses it as a rebuttal of the criticism that EFD lacks prior infectious disease expertise (The editor who added this statement explicitly explained that this was why the statement was added). In doing so, it implies a conclusion not stated in the source: nowhere in the blog post cited does it claim that EFD's work shows prior infectious disease expertise (the fact that no-one used it makes clear this does not demonstrate any expertise). It also cites his google scholar page to make the same implication that he has prior infectious disease expertise. Again, his google scholar page does not explicitly state he has prior infectious disease expertise. As an infectious disease researcher myself, I see no evidence in his google scholar page that he has infectious disease expertise.

• In addition to the above leading to violations of WP:NPOV, it has other direct violations ("Editors... should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.") One part of the criticism is that the reason for the errors is his lack of relevant background. The article makes the unsourced statement "however, he is an epidemiologist with a relevant academic background" - he is an epidemiologist, but there is serious disagreement from many that he has a relevant academic background. This statement clearly promotes one point of view over another. Numerous highly respected infectious disease researchers are on the record as stating that he lacks an understanding of the topic, and that he is often wrong. Failing to even mention that this is a criticism and then explicitly stating (without source) he has "a relevant academic background" is clearly "promoting one particular point of view over another."

Joelmiller (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I believe this statement in a different section, but related to the criticism he received, is not supported by the source that is cited: "Subsequently, earlier criticisms from certain colleagues have been deleted". I can find no such statement in the source, and my earlier request for clarification has not been answered. Joelmiller (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No one who reads the section as it currently stands will know who criticized him. No one who reads the section as it currently stands will know what they actually criticized him for. They are explicitly told that he has "a relevant academic background" (which is in dispute), that he has been praised by an editor-at-large for New York Magazine (which has no relevance to his infectious disease expertise), and that he made an app which apparently was used in the first large Ebola epidemic (even though it was never used for either Ebola epidemic, and I cannot find any source, independent or otherwise, that says it was ever used for any purpose by anyone). If there is going to be a section on criticism of EFD, then it should at the least let people know who is criticizing him and what their criticisms are. Right now anyone who comes to the article fresh would understand that no-one of importance was criticizing him, that those criticisms were about using social media, and that those criticisms are invalid. This violates WP:NPOV. Joelmiller (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Joelmiller and his excellent summary: real, substantive criticism of Feigl-Ding and his Covid-related proclamations has been made by some of the leading experts in the relevant fields and covered in RS; that criticism is not properly included in the article; and it appears there's a concerted effort to downplay or eliminate it. There needs to be reference to the criticism in the lead. The numerous and well-document gross errors and subsequent retractions need to be clearly explained. As of now, one could read the article and come away totally unaware of the significant controversy surrounding him, and the evidence that, in the words of an infectious-disease leader: "Science misinformation is a huge problem right now... [and Feigl-Ding is] a constant source of it." Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And just to clarify about the lead. There is mention of controversy, but the article currently attributes it solely to the fact that his "professional experience and research work are not in infectious disease epidemiology"—when the main grounds for criticism are clearly his alleged inaccuracy, spreading of misinformation, and sensationalism. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend 'criticism' be changed to 'academic debate.' 'Criticism' constantly addressing a nutritional epi background is petty turf-war. Countless 'errors' is also an unsourced statement in terms of publications. I do not believe the wikipedia article should be a catalogue for twitter activity.

Furthermore, a background outside of infectious disease does not preclude one from becoming an expert in the topic or practicing epidemiology. The wall of text is superfluous rationalization for discrediting him. Finally, Ding was more accurate than many putative 'experts' in the scope and breadth of the pandemic and what it would evolve to become. Zmlpqa01 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to address the concerns I've raised? Your comments do not address whether or not the article violates WP:NPOV and related policies. Your comments simply state that because you believe that the criticisms are inaccurate you support delegitimizing them. This violates WP:NPOV. Regarding "Countless 'errors' is also an unsourced statement" - there are RS that substantiate a small portion of these errors as well as the fact that the concerns are about the inaccuracies, not about his use of social media. You could, for example, google the quote in the statement made right above yours.

Let me re-iterate: in this section, which is about apparent violations of Wikipedia's editing policy, please focus your attention on whether or not they are violations of Wikipedia's editing policy. Do not argue why you agree or disagree with the sentiments those apparent violations support. Joelmiller (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've repeatedly raised questions about violations of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:IS, WP:SYNTH in the discussions of criticism. There has yet to be a substantive response arguing that these are not violations. The only response I have gotten is arguments that the criticism is unfair or inaccurate, but even if we accept that as true, that does not justify the violations of the editing policy. If there is a section on the criticism (and I am open to a discussion about whether it should be removed - it would certainly be an improvement on the current presentation), it should accurately represent the criticism and not take sides. As currently presented, this section takes a very clear side. I recommend that until this be resolved, the section should be tagged for potential NPOV violation. Can someone do that: WP:TAGGING? Joelmiller (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, @Joelmiller: Wikipedia rules relevant to this case are numerous and diverse. Your gathering of relevant rules WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:IS, WP:SYNTH, WP:RSes is very helpful in order to allow an informed discussion. The section #Criticism expansion to monitor above also provides relevant rules WP:BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLOGS, WP:TWEET, WP:LIBEL with relevant citations. All those rules have been identified as relevant to improve this article. Yug (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources that need to be featured more prominently in the article

Here are some WP:RSes that need to be featured more prominently in this article. They're in here already, some of them, but they are actually the best RSes we have about Feigl-Deng. Primary sources like his faculty page, publications, his own writing, that is inappropriate to use in this article and it is not how Wiki is supposed to work. These articles are the gold standard here. They provide a neutral second-hand view of Feigl-Deng and are thus of great value. In particular, these should be the sources for statements in the controversy section, not personal websites, google scholar, etc. That is completely inappropriate.

I'll be back to put more work into this, but for now here is a statement telling you what I'm going to do: I'm going to remove as much POV and promotional content as possible, and put in as much third-party and second-party sourced content as possible. The good and the bad. The controversy and the praise. That's what belongs here, not statements about his inventions or his publications. Unless they are covered in WP:RSes, they do not belong here and should be removed.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. FWIW, I started spot checking other sources. Toxinalert.org is abandoned. The source for donations from the Campaign for Cancer Prevention is a press release, and as far as I can tell doesn't mention the donations. This would be a better source: . I haven't looked around much. Joelmiller (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this. One potential value of the Google Scholar page is that it can validate the fact that Feigl-Ding has not published any articles relevant to infectious disease epidemiology, an observation also made at this reference: . GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 09:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Until just now I didn't realize that the above reference had been removed from the article. As it is a post from the Association of Health Care Journalists that specifically notes EFD should not be considered a reliable source on pandemic matters, I think it is important to flag. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 09:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't noticed all sources removal either. I only made scan reading on the health care journalists article but it's pretty well written. No reason to exclude it. Context must be present tho, this article dates from March 21th, 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic data/United States's toll was 23,710 cases and 298 deaths. At that time top US officials claimed it would both do nothing ("just the flu") and "magically disappears", while scientists of the field were professionally-cautiously warning and EFD was an "excessive alarmist". That circus came a long way since. Two other things. Let's not make this biography of living expert a debate on Covid and misinformation. EFD tweets 2 dozen tweets a day about covid, reporting changing scientific knowledge. Let's be fair about both his achievements and mistakes. Last, it's up to each side to bring up the best relevant sources, Wikipedia's rules, as well as the best encyclopedic tone & fairness. At the end a good articles requires both sides to provides those and moderate each others positively. Yug (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the context (early in the pandemic) is important. Would still argue that it has some useful objective info.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Subsequently, earlier criticisms from certain colleagues have been deleted" --- I've already asked the person who added this twice where in the source it states this. Can someone confirm my reading is correct that this claim is not made in the source, and if so, remove the claim from this page? Joelmiller (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I remain confused about the second paragraph of the criticism section. I fail to see what it has to do with criticism.Joelmiller (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think https://undark.org/2020/11/25/complicated-rise-of-eric-feigl-ding/ would justify the criticism section being modified to clearly state that he is criticized for making false statements about COVID, rather than simply not having "appropriate" qualifications.Joelmiller (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Edits reviews & Hostile IP edits ?

Hi, I found

• this removal ambiguous, removes anecdotal yet kind of okish content.

Any opinion on this ? Yug (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I also notice a pattern, what seems to be a changing IP address systematically pushing hostile narrative and ONLY that.

• User:2601:84:C703:3FA0:E0F3:66A7:92DC:9796 : 2020-04-15T21:54:23 -- pushed in the lead section the most extreme selected citation from all sources combines. Content moved to controversy (2020-04-17T08:53:32) by User:Yug.
  It also misrepresent the source, with the journalist's using these extrem to argue that "experts" are redefined by modern media, and relative expertise is also interesting for the public. The misrepresentation haven't been addressed.
• User:2601:285:300:F1A0:C01E:E948:EFC5:1DFB : 2020-03-01T01:21:30. Reverted (2020-03-02T17:04:40) by User:132.62.88.129.
• User:2600:1702:38D1:240:DC04:F691:E3DC:8A2C : 2020-02-09T12:18:06 Reverted (2020-02-10T00:48:45) by Bueller 007
• User:2601:84:C703:3FA0:E9D6:4B99:4CA9:67B7 : 2020-04-19T04:33:58
• User:2601:84:C703:3FA0:6500:8667:C14B:ECB4 : 2020-04-19T11:32:00
• User:Dihorse : 2020-05-09T08:17:32

As long as sourced (generally) and balanced (generally is not), it's okish. I'am still troubled by this pattern of polarized content adding and pushing by changing IP editing on this living-person/scientist/polidician biography only. I recommend if possible to

1. monitor IPs on this living person biography
2. mentor the user for more balanced writing
3. encourage account creation and conflict of interest disclosure to be clear who is or are editing.
4. consider Wikipedia:CheckUser request

Note: Mr Feigl-Ding has been a Democrate candidate and may therefor face heat up hostility on his biography page. Yug (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• 2600:1700:65c1:40:cc82:5ee4:fb44:f6c9 : 2021-03-10T14:55:15
• ... (?)
• 2a02:a03f:8d37:4000:bc45:5f42:c6d9:2db4 : 2021-04-16T13:43:34
  • Reverted 2021-04-18T08:38:06‎ Sahiljain22.

The statement that he created one of the first contact tracing apps is misleading and wrong. This was already deleted ages ago because there is no independent source that claims this (the source is effectively a press release by the organization he was working with, and so far as I can tell it was never used nor has it influenced the development of any contact tracing app that has ever been used). The new version goes farther than the earlier version in falsely implying that it has had widespread impact in the control of COVID. I notice that the ip address that put this paragraph in also did an edit months ago to remove any mention of the controversy from the lede, which appears to have not returned. @GlobeGores @Shibbolethink @Yug I'm maintaining my personal policy of not editing the direct page, but the section on controversy is becoming ever more one-sided. I may change my mind. Can someone please fix this? (see also my comment below)Joelmiller (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This sentence: "His research work and expertise primarily focuses on the health effects of diet and exercise. Feigl-Ding has said he is not sub-specialized in infectious diseases and has never misrepresented himself as such,[39] despite his formal core doctoral training in general epidemiology.[41]" is also misleading. 1) he has allowed himself to be presented as an expert on infectious disease in many media sources without correcting them, and he has explicitly stated that he has relevant expertise. 2) The wording of the sentence is ambiguous - it's not clear whether the statement as worded means that "he says he has never misrepresented himself" or if it means "he has never misrepresented himself"? 3) The people who teach infectious disease epidemiology at the institute where Ding did his "core doctoral training" say they have no recollection of him taking any of their courses - but bringing up his "core doctoral training in general epidemiology" implies that "he must have had some training, right"?Joelmiller (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the paragraph on the hackathon.

I would be strongly in favor of you breaking this policy to make edits as you feel appropriate, though I understand if you are concerned about professional impacts. The page is very biased at the moment, and it honestly has seemed too daunting for me to take a stab at making improvements. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph on his qualifications in the manner that you suggested, making it a bit more clearly critical. Due to the very high volume of accounts supportive of Feigl-Ding on this page, however, I suspect this will cause an edit war. The comments from User:Shibbolethink below make me more confident that the text prior to my edits was violating WP:NPOV - but we will probably end up needing to have another conversation with User:Yug and/or User:Sahiljain22 about the new wording.GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 06:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll think about updating my personal refusal to directly edit. @Yug - do you have any thoughts? If I were to edit it, I would explicitly include the quote from an infectious disease epidemiologist that is in a reliable source stating that Ding is a source of misinformation, and I would remove the reference to him being defended by "epidemiologist peers" like "Simin Liu, a Harvard School of Public Health and Brown University School of Public Health professor of epidemiology". Given that Simin Liu is also not an infectious disease researcher and is an *adjunct* professor at HSPH, and one of the sources is Liu's friggin linked in page, I think this page has had a very different standard for support of EFD compared to criticisms. It should be mentioned that at least some of (I believe the majority of) the people who study infectious disease believe Ding spreads misinformation. Since my request keeps being met with silence, @Yug - do you have any objection to me adding the quote about misinformation I have requested previously, or more generally any thoughts on me directly editing the page?Joelmiller (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I have decided that for now I will go ahead and delete statements that are unsourced or mis-sourced, but for now try to avoid further edits. I've deleted the claim that "criticisms from certain colleagues have been deleted" which had 2 supposed sources, both of which mentioned that EFD had deleted multiple claims, but not that any criticisms of EFD were deleted.Joelmiller (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Since so far as I can tell no-one has explicitly responded to my questions about adding a statement that active researchers consider him a source of misinformation, I have added the statement.Joelmiller (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This article does not make it clear that Eric Feigl-Ding's approach to science communication has been criticized

Since the above discussion over criticisms of EFD's expertise and approach to science communication, the parts of this article discussing said criticisms have been watered down and/or interspersed with misleading caveats that make it seem like there is more support than opposition to EFD's approach. If one were to look at the introduction and the table of contents until my edit minutes ago, one would have no idea that there is any dispute at all about whether EFD is an expert, or whether he is overly sensationalistic. Since I think a broader rewrite would be controversial, I have renamed the "Debate" subsection to "Debate over epidemiological expertise" to make it more clear to skimmers that there is something important here. However, I strongly believe the debate over EFD's credentials and sensationalism is important enough to warrant a mention in the introduction. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, the intro makes it clear that EFD is a nutrition and chronic disease researcher and I think is pretty neutral on whether or not EFD is to be considered a reliable source. I appreciate User:Yug and User:Sahiljain22 collaborating above to ensure this content was in the intro. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We all spent far too much energy on this issue already. Current section Eric_Feigl-Ding#Debate_over_relevant_epidemiological_expertise announce the general issue quite clearly. Please note his expertise in epidemiology is solidly confirmed, the debate is over expertise in « epidemiology of infectious diseases ». It's an overly specific dispute for the general public of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the place to lengthily on experts disputes. GlobeGores, the section title putting doubt upon an epidemiologist over his expertise in epidemiology is quite harsh and a poster child of character assassination. Can you come up with something better ? Or may you allow me to find something ? (Also, please be cautious, this user recent blunt edits were all reverted) Yug (talk) 🐲 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I do want to be honest, I disagree on this point - the article is still in my view overly generous to EFD. I am not happy with its current state, and frankly my ideal approach to the article is much more closely aligned with User:Bueller 007's edits than the current text. I also think more community attention on this article would probably back this up - when User:Joelmiller asked for feedback on the article by posting on WP:NPOV/N, the responding editor agreed that the article was overly biased in favor of EFD.

While I think the two of us could work collaboratively to figure out an appropriate text, it does seem that various other editors keep coming in (from both critical and supportive viewpoints regarding EFD) and making changes that then upset the balance. So I think we may need to try something with more teeth - for example, filing a WP:RFC to see if we can figure out an appropriate landing spot for the article. Let me know if you feel comfortable with this approach GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So I learned recently about WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP, both of which apply to this article. An admin has added a notice to the top of this talk page that alerts editors to these decisions, which may decrease the likelihood of people to engage in edit wars or non-constructive behavior. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I emphatically, wholeheartedly, agree with @GlobeGores. This article has massive POV issues and if i had more time I would fix it myself. But I support their efforts to do so. I will pitch in when I can as well. But it is overly supportive/biased and paints EFD in a very supportive light, and omits (or minimizes) many of the criticisms he has received (and continues to receive). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I do not have bandwidth for this either at the moment. In general, this article attracts a lot of IP and new account editor attention and that makes settling on any specific text difficult, since people who were not involved with the discussion will take exception and change it. That's why I wonder if a RFC or similar mediation process might help us settle on a consensus wording, which we could then warn new editors against changing. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes i agree an RfC would be a good idea. But it would probably need to be about specific wording or drafts/versions. For example, if we were to get a collaboratively edited less flowery supportive draft, we could then do an RFC on the implementation of that draft. Protection would make sense if there are enough instances of IPs going against consensus or in some way violating policies or guidelines. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree too. While I've been focused on limiting harsh attack on EFD I haven't been able to revamp other sections. One sections I edited long ago about the difficulty of being an early alarmist has mostly a role to add context to deter incoming attacks on EFD for being alarmist. This section would need to be reduced in a stable BLP article not under hostile attacks. Improvement and rewriting needed there as well. The first wave of editors are too partisan, either "pro" or "against". I also don't feel comfortable with former colleagues of EFD pushing to expand the "controversies/scandals" elements, etc. WP:RfC, WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP would be a good idea indeed. Best for the article would be to have a new wave of experienced editors coming in. Yug (talk) 🐲 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I need to say something more here. As far as I am concerned, the section on criticisms does not actually discuss the criticisms. All it says is people aren't sure he has the right expertise. But there are quotes from recognized experts in infectious diseases that appear in reliable sources saying things like "Science misinformation is a huge problem right now — I think we can all appreciate it — [and] he’s a constant source of it." This isn't questioning whether he has the appropriate research background to comment. Rather it is a serious, credible claim that he spreads misinformation. Nothing in the article currently suggests that (a wide range of) infectious disease experts believe he is unreliable and frequently a source of misinformation. While my own preference would be that the section focus primarily on what the actual infectious disease experts have to say (pro or con) rather than what this journalist or that journalist has to say, I think there can be no question that the section should at least mention what the experts say.
(and @Yug, I don't know who you're referring to as his "former colleagues", but it's worth pointing out that none of the infectious disease researchers at Harvard had ever heard of him before he started tweeting about COVID and claiming they were his colleagues).Joelmiller (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

JoelMiller hello,

If I understand well both you (https://scholar.harvard.edu/joelmiller/biocv) and EFD ( https://scholar.harvard.edu/ericfeiglding/bio) have been studying and teaching at Harvard, in the field of epidemiology, in the same periods.

Review of your edits shows that at least 74 of your 132 edits (56%) have been dedicated to EFD. If we counted by bits, your focus on EFD would likely make 80% of your contributions.

Qualitatively, your efforts are largely asking to add in critical sources or quotes and to remove sections praising EFG.

You can understand this triad of 1) IRL professional proximity with that person, 2) quantitative mono-engagement, and 3) qualitative focus on increasing criticism of this BLP can puzzle other Wikipedia contributors.

In the background, (4) this article was also under attack by IPs, mostly from North Eastern USA (same geographic area as yours), (5) EFD is politically involved as Democrat, and (6) NPIs and NPIs advocates became political targets.

Your suggestions nevertheless contain good quality points which should be addressed. But this situation is quite uncomfortable.

Please also note that some of your standards seems higher that what we expected for a general encyclopedia and mass media. For those, a person with a PhD in epidemiology is a certified epidemiologist. Even if you, academics, make sharp difference between sub-domains and require only sub-domain specialists with publications to speak about a given issue. Mass media don't have this high threshold. I think this higher standard from your side / lower standard from mass media and Wikipedia side is at the core of our diverging point of view on this biography. Yug (talk) 🐲 23:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yug

1) I never knew Ding when I was at HSPH. That "IRL proximity" is weak. The list of academics at HSPH has around 1500 people (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/profiles/) which I believe doesn't include PhD students or postdocs. As I've stated I was part of the infectious disease community, which is a completely different department from nutrition. I literally never heard of him before 2020.

2) Your suggestion about this article being under attack by IPs "mostly from North Eastern USA" and then immediately pointing out that this is the "same geographic area as [me]" seems to imply you think I may have been doing the malicious edits. This is false and damaging, and it falls flat given that I live in Melbourne, Australia (a fact that is very easily checked, for example by reading the website you linked to).

3) I have been a loud advocate of NPIs. Indeed research I participated in has been directly cited by policy makers in explaining tightening of NPIs (also loosening). Suggesting I'm challenging him because he advocates policies I generally support is ridiculous. In fact I have been heavily critical (and quoted in news articles) of some of the people who most oppose Ding's goals. This is not me being partisan about COVID policies. It is entirely explained by my feelings on misinformation.

4)I generally support the Democratic party.

5)It is true that a large fraction of my edits on Wikipedia have been on this talk page. But this is a highly misleading statistic given that I rarely edit Wikipedia. A large fraction of a small number remains a small number. Based on the website you linked to, there have only been three time periods where I've made comments on this. The first two were separated by 15 months and the next two by 8 months. Calling this "quantitative mono-engagement" when you've actually looked at the data showing these gaps is also misleading. A more accurate comparison might be my public commentary on Ding versus, say, my public commentary on Levitt (https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/24/stanford-professor-and-nobel-laureate-critics-say-he-was-dangerously-misleading-on-covid/) or other academics that are sources of misinformation on COVID. If Michael Levitt's Wikipedia page were as one-sided about his COVID advocacy as this one is, I'd be commenting there too. Somehow this page has uniquely avoided balance, despite most conscientious editors on the talk page stating that they believe it violates NPOV and that it needs to more accurately reflect the concerns that I've raised. Remember, when I first visited this page, some of the editors openly stated that they were editing the page in a way that explicitly violated Wikipedia policy because they felt the criticism of Ding was unfair. This bias is what has drawn me back. I have a passionate dislike of misinformation, especially when it is close to things I have expertise in.

It has been shocking to visit this page periodically and find it still fails to mention that he has been explicitly accused of spreading misinformation by experts in the field. Almost everything about the "controversy" has focused on statements from people who support him - to the point that no-one reading the page actually knows what the controversy is, and not a single name is given of people who question him, while many of his supporters are highlighted by name and important-sounding (often irrelevant) credentials. I have asked you directly more than once whether there is a reason not to mention that experts in the field accuse him of spreading misinformation. You have never directly answered the question, except to say that self-published quotes cannot be used. The quote I have been asking about is from a reliable source that is already used as a reference in the main article, not a self-published quote. I have finally added a passing reference to the statement because I gave up on getting an answer from you (before I saw your statement here). It is clearly relevant. It is in reliable sources. And bluntly, it is true.

Suggesting I am responsible for IP attacks based on knowing where I worked a decade ago bothers me. You could have easily used publicly available information to verify that I live almost as far away from Northeast US as geographically possible... You should have been more careful before leveling an accusation. I hope it was simply a poorly worded statement (and if you can explain what you meant, I will accept that explanation), but please in the future be careful to avoid appearing to make accusations about others unless you first go through efforts to check their plausibility. If you have evidence of anything other than that I have very strong opinions about the spread of misinformation (regardless of which side of which issue) and that this page has been consistently misinforming as to whether he spreads misinformation, put it up. Otherwise, I would appreciate a retraction of the implicit accusation. Joelmiller (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

One last comment @Yug - You stated: "Even if you, academics, make sharp difference between sub-domains and require only sub-domain specialists with publications to speak about a given issue."

This makes me feel that either you have not been paying attention to what I'm saying or you're subconsciously misreading what I've said. I have already stated that I have no problem with people who are not experts saying things. I've repeatedly stated that the issue isn't his lack of expertise, it's the fact that he says things that are false. Yes, that is compounded by the fact that people believe him because of his implied expertise. But the fundamental issue is whether he reliably promotes facts. I don't believe you'll find anywhere that I've said he has no business commenting about the issue because of his background, rather than because of his history of inaccurate statements (and to be honest I don't have an opinion on whether he "should" be commenting - just on whether people should know that he's widely regarded as a source of misinformation).

Please do not falsely suggest that I've argued only experts can speak on a given issue. My focus remains that this page should make clear that the experts believe he is often a source of misinformation. I strongly disagree with the statement that only specialists should speak about a given issue, and I object to having that belief falsely attributed to me. Please don't do it again. Joelmiller (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)